Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaked source – CS:GO

lwss.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 117 posts

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#101

Post by PrimeMcFly »

Spivak wrote: post #98
PrimeMcFly wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sheer amount of YouTube videos where people put that as a disclaimer so think it's fine is kind of shocking.

Well to be fair YT has made it confusing because some of the time it is. Some artists allow fan uploads like that and just collect the ad revenue off it. So really in the modern era no copyright intended really is a message to the artist/label saying it's a fan video, they're not trying to impersonate the official one and asking for it to stay. The uploader might not know that that's what they're really asking but cr…

The message means nothing though and is based on a poor understanding of how copyright works.

If it's allowed the message is irrelevant, and i it's not allow it's also irrelevant as it will be ignored and the video removed.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#102

Post by geon »

ogurechny wrote: post #71
opan wrote: post #7

The title says "open source" but then goes on to talk about leaked source. Unless a clean room RE was done, I don't think this can be called "open source". I want the thing in the title to exist, of course, but at best this seems like the sort of thing that won't be legal and free until we're all dead. If anyone was interested in making a properly free CS:GO, they probably should avoid reading this post as it seems t…

Intellectual property is a convention. Saying that nothing exists outside of that convention is like saying that someone without official papers does not exist (which is, unfortunately, not an odd occasional curiosity, but a hidden assumption permeating everyone's lives). This is an open source code. It is not compatible with widespread economical system, but it is not any less open.

The source being available illegally has nothing to do with open source.

Open source is by definition legal to modify and spread. There is a number of open source compatible licenses.

Leaked source is just that. Leaked.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#103

Post by geon »

ogurechny wrote: post #77
dgellow wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who cares about open source by definition cares about copyright. That’s what the concepts of free software and open source software are built upon.

Wow. Free software movement abuses the copyright system to prevent anyone from “owning” the software and putting a fence around others' work when greed tells it's suitable to do so. It has no intention to support its existence. As people only have that mediocre system today, and believe in it, it is used as a tool to partially formalize something from a different sphere of values.

Are you thinking of the GPL? There are other open source licenses.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#104

Post by geon »

antris wrote: post #35
wyldfire wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Both of these terms are well described by the relevant organizations [1][2]. And "source the happens to be public" or "leaked source" does not imply any particular license. [1] https://opensource.org/ [2] https://www.fsf.org/

I mean, you're not saying that this project is "closed source" either, right? So what is it if not "open source" on the scale between closed and open? "Half-open source"? "Leaked source" only refers to the way the source has initially began to be distributed, not whether it's open/closed right now.

This is definitely closed source. It is also leaked.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#106

Post by orra »

scott_w wrote: post #40
orra wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General point: Clean room reverse engineering is a common approach, from corporations keen to minimise their liability. Nonetheless, clean room RE is not a legal requirement: certainly not in the EU, nor AIUI in the US. The EU allows reverse engineering for interoperability. The EU allows reimplementations of APIs (as does the US). The EU also explicitly allows decompilation, where necessary.

In a general sense, yes. However, I really don’t see how this would fall into that category. It looks like someone has a copy illegitimately and is trying to reimplement it.

Yes. AIUI, it's the illegitimate copy that's the problem, not so much the decompilation approach.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#107

Post by no_time »

Now that it has been posted here, I urge everyone to clone the repo and download the steam depots mentioned in the README.

It did compile successfully for me the last time I tried it a year ago. I miss the original UI more than I anticipated, but other than that it works great.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#108

Post by paulddraper »

antris wrote: post #99
paulddraper wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Leaked source" Like, you wouldn't call a pirated movie "free". I mean, it is, but only by violating copyright law.

Of course I would call a pirated movie free, because that's what it is. Free isn't a synonym for good or legal.

Anything at the store is free too, you just have to avoid paying.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#109

Post by grodriguez100 »

antris wrote: post #99
paulddraper wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Leaked source" Like, you wouldn't call a pirated movie "free". I mean, it is, but only by violating copyright law.

Of course I would call a pirated movie free, because that's what it is. Free isn't a synonym for good or legal.

“Free” is related to the concept of property, which is a legal concept.

If something is “free” that means that you can get it legally without paying.

If something is only “free” by circumventing law, then that’s theft.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#110

Post by wastedbrains »

BasedAnon wrote: post #49
dizhn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This person is really confused about licenses and copyright. > Please note that this code is property of Valve-Software and any contributions that you make are considered a donation into the public domain.

This is a common 'copyright infringement NOT intended ALL rights belong to X' type of widespread misunderstanding of how copyright actually works, and it's why I'm convinced that if most people understood copyright they would think it was absurd.

[dead]
Post reply on HN